The difference is you can milk shareholders for money before you have a product - whereas it’s the other way around with gamers***.They should start making more games for gamers again and less for shareholders, should do wonders.
I don't think you can directly tap shareholders for money, can you?The difference is you can milk shareholders for money before you have a product - whereas it’s the other way around with gamers***.
***Unless you do Kickstarter… This Buds for you Star Citizen!
Keep in mind there are some different parties here.I don't think you can directly tap shareholders for money, can you?
You can pump up the share price by making moves that pleases shareholders. Then dump your own shares. Like Elon Musk does all the time.
But I don't think that's Embracer's play here, they simply seem incompetent and out of touch, like SQENIX
There are plenty of issues with the video game industry. These go back to the early 2000's if not earlier. With all the massive layoffs in the industry we heard about last year, you can't say the industry doesn't have problems. It most certainly does.I don't think theres issues with the industry, even when big studios misbehave. This industry is huge, with so many indie titles theres nothing to worry.
But I wasn't talking about different parties, just Embracer, who in this case acts as the publisher and is supposed to fund development.Keep in mind there are some different parties here.
The post I was replying to said they don't need to make games because they can just tap shareholders for money. I asked how, none of what you mention in the part I cut from the quote answers that.Where the Publisher gets that money - they have many various sources of funding, just like any business, apart from just their own bank account.
That's not tapping shareholders but creating more of them, unless you consider the consequent de-valuation of existing shares as tapping.But yes, you can just tap shareholders for more money - you just issue new stock. It's called Equity Financing. They don't always do it - sometimes it's better to just go get a loan or issue a bond, or liquidate other assets, or dip into the piggy bank. Knowing when to do what is how CFOs earn their paychecks.
2000 was a long time ago, I don't think the current issues go back that far. The gaming industry was pretty good until the mid 2010s, that's when development cycles ran away from 1-3 years to 5-8, which is not sustainable. Plus the added issue of nefarious actors infiltrating the industry, who let's just say don't exactly have the customer's interests in focus.There are plenty of issues with the video game industry. These go back to the early 2000's if not earlier. With all the massive layoffs in the industry we heard about last year, you can't say the industry doesn't have problems. It most certainly does.
Agreed, an indie title will never give the same quality experience as AAA games. I especially dislike this new wave of 8-bit looking games. Nothing screams low effort any more than that.Also, I wish people would stop bringing up indie titles. That's some of that "we have games at home" kind of crap. I've yet to ever see one that matched a decent AAA title. I can't think of many indie titles much less any that provide the same experience a AAA game can when they are good. There are no Cyberpunk 2077/Phantom Liberty like experiences in the indie scene.
Voice actors always complained about how strenous and monotonous their job is, AI can already take over the worst part, background NPC lines. They should be happy to only focus on the meaningful dialogue.However, one of the things I've heard voice actor who plays Adam Jensen is talk about recently is the rise of AI being used for voice over work which effectively means, fewer voice over jobs out there. It's already happening in games now. Pretty soon background voices will be exclusively AI and the only voice actors hired will be for main characters where the AI voices won't hold up to scrutiny. Eventually, they'll be able to replace them for roles that don't require too much emotion and then replace human performers entirely.
How far away each of these stages are is debatable. We don't really know but from some of what I've heard from AI, they can do a lot of that now. Humans can still do it better for now but AI is good enough to take over smaller roles within games without most people ever noticing.
Actually, many of the issues present back in those days are present now. Issues of tight deadlines, low pay, contract oriented work and a lot of the stuff modern game developers bitch about were all problems back then. I live in the Dallas area and back in the late 1990's and early 2000's, this was one of the best places to be for anyone working in that industry.2000 was a long time ago, I don't think the current issues go back that far. The gaming industry was pretty good until the mid 2010s, that's when development cycles ran away from 1-3 years to 5-8, which is not sustainable.
I know precisely what you mean and I agree completely.Plus the added issue of nefarious actors infiltrating the industry, who let's just say don't exactly have the customer's interests in focus.
Well said and again, I couldn't agree more. There is a difference between low budget and low effort, though the two are often present within the same titles. RoboCop: Rogue City is low budget. It is not however, low effort. It was a great game with a strong narrative. Though there are some things about the game that would have been improved by having a larger budget, it still managed decent visuals and leveraged their talent to the best of their ability.Agreed, an indie title will never give the same quality experience as AAA games. I especially dislike this new wave of 8-bit looking games. Nothing screams low effort any more than that.
The better AI voice stuff out there could replace the vast majority of voice actors today. The only place I don't feel it can do this is with more emotionally charged scenes. I think we'll need real voice actors for that, but the pool of work will start shrinking. It already has been and that's what Adam Jensen's voice actor was talking about in one interview. Eventually, I think the technology will reach a point where even the emotional stuff can be done by AI. Again, how long that will take is anyone's guess. Could be a decade, could be three or four decades. I really don't know.Voice actors always complained about how strenous and monotonous their job is, AI can already take over the worst part, background NPC lines. They should be happy to only focus on the meaningful dialogue.
I see AI as an opportunity to eventually make NPC interactions more organic and situation aware. And I don't think voice actors will ever be completely replaced by them. At the least they'll still record voice samples for the AI to learn. But I think the crucial plot critical lines will still be recorded in studios and not voiced by AI.
You have succeeded in completely loosing me. I don't follow.The post I was replying to said they don't need to make games because they can just tap shareholders for money. I asked how, none of what you mention in the part I cut from the quote answers that.
I thought you meant issues causing games to be bad, not internal HR issues. I'm well aware of the contract worker setup of studios. I actually wanted to work in the gaming industry and interviewed at one pretty big company at the time. The conditions they offered were horrendous. Minimum wage, or slightly more if you agreed to be an independent contractor and not an employee. But fresh out of school I'd still have taken it.Actually, many of the issues present back in those days are present now. Issues of tight deadlines, low pay, contract oriented work and a lot of the stuff modern game developers bitch about were all problems back then. I live in the Dallas area and back in the late 1990's and early 2000's, this was one of the best places to be for anyone working in that industry.
I don't think Robocop or Terminator Resistance were indie games, they had a publisher. They were just AA budget instead of AAA.Well said and again, I couldn't agree more. There is a difference between low budget and low effort, though the two are often present within the same titles. RoboCop: Rogue City is low budget. It is not however, low effort. It was a great game with a strong narrative. Though there are some things about the game that would have been improved by having a larger budget, it still managed decent visuals and leveraged their talent to the best of their ability.
No, you said they can go to the shareholders to get money before releasing a game.You have succeeded in completely loosing me. I don't follow.
I posted that a developer can go to a publisher, get a bunch of money up front, and yeah - they don't even have to release a game, they have a check in hand from Day 1. Versus waiting until getting the game out the door and actually selling copies.
Maybe you wanted to write publisher, but you definitely wrote shareholders.The difference is you can milk shareholders for money before you have a product
